TOPICS:
SEP 08, 2004 08:02 PM
SEP 09, 2004 01:37 AM
SEP 09, 2004 01:56 AM
katharine said:
Why is he flipping them his index finger? 
SEP 09, 2004 02:10 AM
JUST DRINK THE DAMN KOOL-AID!!!
SEP 09, 2004 06:49 AM
cop_n_blow said:
Dogslife said:
I suspect Kerry will continue to talk about Vietnam as long as his military record is being erroneously represented by the Showboat Veteran goonsquad.
by responding to a "goonsquad," he validates them. i agree with clinton's advice.
Strongly Third-ed!
SEP 09, 2004 08:07 AM
f_a_hayek said:
Raoul_Duke said:
Are you serious...How can you seriously think assault weapons don't pose an obvious security threat? Tell that to the people in Russia... How many people die per year from gun deaths in the US...
just what are assault weapons, raoul?
okay. russia. so "assault weapons" are fully automatic rifles and bomb strapped terrorists. since 1934 there has been a total of one crime commited in the us by a legally owned automatic weapon, and that was a cop. a threat to our security? and while most of you would like to see him strap one on, i'm pretty damned sure Stock isn't "for" suicide bombers.... hes a little vocal about that whole anti terror thing.
the US... so now ALL guns are assault weapons. well as John Lott has shown, more liberal (in the classic sense, not the bleeding heart type) gun laws (such as ccw laws) actually lead to a decline in crime. but hey, lets stick the the "guns are bad, mmmkay" mentality. so we outlaw guns. as prohibition, robbery, prostitution, drug illegality, jaywalking, etc. has shown, people who want illegal things will still get 'em; i.e. criminals. and isnt that the threat to security as opposed to law abiding, self defense concious(sp), target shooting, hunting people? okay. so somehow we magically get rid of all the guns off the face of the planet. criminals use box cutters. 2 towers and a five sided building have shown us that side of the story.
sorry, but security and the legal ownership of firearms can skip into the sunset hand in hand; they are NOT mutually exclusive.
[Edited on Sep 09, 2004 by f_a_hayek]
Yes, fully automatic assault rifles were used by terrorists in Russia. It's called an assault rifle for a reason and they were developed as such, for a reason. You still haven't justified why some aspects of the Bill of Rights are fair game while others can be abandoned...I'm saying if you wan to keep your guns, I want to keep the rest.
Safety isn't increased with legal assault weapons. Assault weapons serve one purpose, killing on a large scale. Since 1934...well off the top of my head I can think of more than one...Waco and the LA bank robbery...
No one is saying that the assault weapon ban will absolutely rid us of firearms but how can you say it will hurt security? Would you be willing to have intensive background checks, long waiting periods, a ban on gun shows loopholes, and registration checks in order to keep them legal...then maybe I'd be with you. Ultimately though, what I want is a respect for the entire Bill of Right...not just the parts that gun owners and militia people like.
I'm not sayig Stock is for terrorists...geez what a spin you put on that. All I'm saying is he thinks freedom can be put on hold for security...unless it's freedoms he personally enjoys. Anyway, I like Stock, I get a kick out of the off-the-wall things he says. Plus he makes the rest of us look so damn good. 
Hussein
I'm lost
March 2004
SEP 08, 2004 10:55 AM